-
PloS One 2023Methamphetamine use and related harms have risen at alarming rates. While several psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions have been described in the literature,... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
Methamphetamine use and related harms have risen at alarming rates. While several psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions have been described in the literature, there is uncertainty regarding the best approach for the management of methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) and problematic methamphetamine use (PMU). We conducted a scoping review of recent systematic reviews (SR), clinical practice guidelines (CPG), and primary controlled studies of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments for MUD/PMU.
METHODS
Guided by an a priori protocol, electronic database search updates (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase) were performed in February 2022. Screening was performed following a two-stage process, leveraging artificial intelligence to increase efficiency of title and abstract screening. Studies involving individuals who use methamphetamine, including key subgroups (e.g. those with mental health comorbidities; adolescents/youths; gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) were sought. We examined evidence related to methamphetamine use, relapse, use of other substances, risk behaviors, mental health, harms, and retention. Figures, tables and descriptive synthesis were used to present findings from the identified literature.
RESULTS
We identified 2 SRs, one CPG, and 54 primary studies reported in 69 publications that met our eligibility criteria. Amongst SRs, one concluded that psychostimulants had no effect on methamphetamine abstinence or treatment retention while the other reported no effect of topiramate on cravings. The CPG strongly recommended psychosocial interventions as well as self-help and family support groups for post-acute management of methamphetamine-related disorders. Amongst primary studies, many interventions were assessed by only single studies; contingency management was the therapy most commonly associated with evidence of potential effectiveness, while bupropion and modafinil were analogously the most common pharmacologic interventions. Nearly all interventions showed signs of potential benefit on at least one methamphetamine-related outcome measure.
DISCUSSION
This scoping review provides an overview of available interventions for the treatment of MUD/PMU. As most interventions were reported by a single study, the effectiveness of available interventions remains uncertain. Primary studies with longer durations of treatment and follow-up, larger sample sizes, and of special populations are required for conclusive recommendations of best approaches for the treatment of MUD/PMU.
Topics: Male; Adolescent; Humans; Methamphetamine; Homosexuality, Male; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Artificial Intelligence; Central Nervous System Stimulants
PubMed: 37819931
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292745 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Dec 2021Excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea affects 9%-22% of continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients. An indirect treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea affects 9%-22% of continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients. An indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy and safety of medications (solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil) approved to treat excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea.
METHODS
Efficacy and safety measures assessed in this indirect treatment comparison included Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), 20-minute Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT20), Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (any, serious, or leading to discontinuation).
RESULTS
A systematic literature review identified 6 parallel-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials that randomized 1,714 total participants to placebo, solriamfetol, modafinil, or armodafinil. In this indirect treatment comparison, all comparators were associated with greater improvements than placebo on the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Relative to comparators and placebo at 12 weeks, solriamfetol at 150 mg or 300 mg had the highest probabilities of improvement in the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C. Modafinil (200 or 400 mg) and solriamfetol (150 or 300 mg) were associated with greater improvement on the FOSQ than placebo at 12 weeks. Less than 2% of patients using placebo or comparators experienced serious or discontinuation-related treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this indirect treatment comparison show 12 weeks of treatment with solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil resulted in varying levels of improvement on the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C and similar safety risks in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea.
CITATION
Ronnebaum S, Bron M, Patel D, et al. Indirect treatment comparison of solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil for excessive daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea. . 2021;17(12):2543-2555.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Carbamates; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Modafinil; Phenylalanine; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34402784
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9610 -
Cureus Jul 2021Narcolepsy is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons play an important role in enhancing wakefulness. The objective of our... (Review)
Review
Narcolepsy is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons play an important role in enhancing wakefulness. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of pitolisant, a histamine 3 (H3)-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, in patients with a high burden of narcolepsy symptoms. We conducted an advanced PubMed search strategy with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The outcome included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and adverse effects frequency. Our primary outcome included the mean ESS score at the endpoint and showed that pitolisant was superior to the placebo, but not non-inferior to modafinil. Adverse effects were less common and shorter in duration in the pitolisant group compared to the modafinil-treated patients. Pitolisant was efficacious in reducing excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy compared with placebo, and it was well-tolerated in patients with severe narcolepsy symptoms as compared with modafinil.
PubMed: 34345566
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16095 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo via Ovid to 12 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled (RCTs) trials that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MK, JD) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a risk of bias assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this updated review. Six were from the original version of the review, and two more were added when the search was updated. Nineteen further studies were assessed as part of this update but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the eight included studies, four studies investigated "prevention" of cognitive problems (during radiotherapy and follow-up) and four studies investigated "amelioration" (interventions to treat cognitive impairment as a late complication of radiotherapy). There were five pharmacological studies (two studies on prevention and three in amelioration) and three non-pharmacological studies (two on prevention and one in amelioration). Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Studies in early radiotherapy treatment phase (five studies) Pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" were designed to prevent or ameliorate cognitive deficits and included drugs used in dementia (memantine) and fatigue (d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride). Non-pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" included a ketogenic diet and a two-week cognitive rehabilitation and problem-solving programme. In the memantine study, the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The study of a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet found no effect, although a lower than expected calorie intake in the control group complicates interpretation of the results. The study investigating the utility of a rehabilitation program did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Studies in delayed radiation or late effect phase (four studies) The "amelioration" pharmacological studies to treat cognitive complications of radiotherapy included drugs used in dementia (donepezil) or psychostimulants (methylphenidate and modafinil). Non-pharmacological measures included cognitive rehabilitation and problem solving (Goal Management Training). These studies included patients with cognitive problems at entry who had "stable" brain cancer. The donepezil study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall cognitive performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. A study comparing methylphenidate with modafinil found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. Another study comparing two different doses of modafinil combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The Goal Management Training study suggested a benefit of the intervention, a behavioural intervention that combined mindfulness and strategy training, on executive function and processing speed. There were a number of limitations across studies and few were without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, limited additional evidence was found for the treatment or amelioration of cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. As concluded in the original review, there is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil, methylphenidate and modafinil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation; patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of these studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher certainty of evidence. There is evidence from only a single small study to support non-pharmacological interventions in the amelioration of cognitive deficits. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Modafinil; Donepezil; Memantine; Quality of Life; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cranial Irradiation; Cognition; Methylphenidate; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Dementia
PubMed: 36427235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects 6.4 million children in the United States of America. Children and adolescents, the main consumers of ADHD...
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects 6.4 million children in the United States of America. Children and adolescents, the main consumers of ADHD medication, are in the bone growth phase, which extends over a period of up to two decades. Thus, impaired proliferation and maturation of chondrocytes and osteoblasts can result in impaired bone formation. The aim of this study is to investigate, for the first time, the effects of the ADHD-medication modafinil, atomoxetine and guanfacine on bone growth and repair in vitro. Using two-dimensional and three-dimensional cell models, we investigated the chondrogenic/osteogenic differentiation, proliferation and viability of human mesenchymal progenitor cells. Real-time cell proliferation was measured by xCELLigence. Live/dead staining and size measurement of hMSC- and MG63 monolayer and spheroids were performed after administration of therapeutic plasma concentrations of modafinil, atomoxetine and guanfacine. Chondrogenic differentiation was quantified by RTqPCR. The chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation was evaluated by histological cryo-sections. Modafinil, atomoxetine and guanfacine reduced chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation terms of transcript expression and at the histological level. Cell viability of the MG63- and hMSC monolayer was not impeded by ADHD-medication. Our in vitro results indicate that modafinil, atomoxetine and guanfacine may impair chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation in a 3D model reflecting the in vivo physiologic condition.
PubMed: 36294540
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206218 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2021Sleep disorders are among the main comorbidities in patients with a Disorder of Consciousness (DOC). Given the key role of sleep in neural and cognitive functioning,... (Review)
Review
Sleep disorders are among the main comorbidities in patients with a Disorder of Consciousness (DOC). Given the key role of sleep in neural and cognitive functioning, detecting and treating sleep disorders in DOCs might be an effective therapeutic strategy to boost consciousness recovery and levels of awareness. To date, no systematic reviews have been conducted that explore the effect of sleep treatments in DOCs; thus, we systematically reviewed the existing studies on both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for sleep disorders in DOCs. Among 2267 assessed articles, only 7 were included in the systematic review. The studies focused on two sleep disorder categories (sleep-related breathing disorders and circadian rhythm dysregulation) treated with both pharmacological (Modafinil and Intrathecal Baclofen) and non-pharmacological (positive airway pressure, bright light stimulation, and central thalamic deep brain stimulation) interventions. Although the limited number of studies and their heterogeneity do not allow generalized conclusions, all the studies highlighted the effectiveness of treatments on both sleep disorders and levels of awareness. For this reason, clinical and diagnostic evaluations able to detect sleep disorders in DOC patients should be adopted in the clinical routine for the purpose of intervening promptly with the most appropriate treatment.
PubMed: 35054255
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010088 -
Neurotherapeutics : the Journal of the... Jan 2021Narcolepsy is a rare, chronic, and disabling central nervous system hypersomnia; two forms can be recognized: narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) and narcolepsy type 2 (NT2). Its... (Review)
Review
Narcolepsy is a rare, chronic, and disabling central nervous system hypersomnia; two forms can be recognized: narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) and narcolepsy type 2 (NT2). Its etiology is still largely unknown, but studies have reported a strong association between NT1 and HLA, as well as a pathogenic association with the deficiency of cerebrospinal hypocretin-1. Thus, the most reliable pathogenic hypothesis is an autoimmune process destroying hypothalamic hypocretin-producing cells. A definitive cure for narcolepsy is not available to date, and although the research in the field is highly promising, up to now, current treatments have aimed to reduce the symptoms by means of different pharmacological approaches. Moreover, overall narcolepsy symptoms management can also benefit from non-pharmacological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) and psychosocial interventions to improve the patients' quality of life in both adult and pediatric-affected individuals as well as the well-being of their families. In this review, we summarize the available therapeutic options for narcolepsy, including the pharmacological, behavioral, and psychosocial interventions.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Carbamates; Counseling; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Phenylalanine; Piperidines; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 33886090
DOI: 10.1007/s13311-021-01051-4 -
Psychological Medicine Jan 2022There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the co-occurrence of headache in children with ADHD, and the effects of ADHD medications on headache. Embase, Medline and PsycInfo were searched for population-based and clinical studies comparing the prevalence of headache in ADHD and controls through January 26, 2021. In addition, we updated the search of a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADHD medications on June 16, 2020. Trials of amphetamines, atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with a placebo arm and reporting data on headache as an adverse event, were included. Thirteen epidemiological studies and 58 clinical trials were eligible for inclusion. In epidemiological studies, a significant association between headache and ADHD was found [odds ratio (OR) = 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.63-2.46], which remained significant when limited to studies reporting ORs adjusted for possible confounders. The pooled prevalence of headaches in children with ADHD was 26.6%. In RCTs, three ADHD medications were associated with increased headache during treatment periods, compared to placebo: atomoxetine (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.06-1.56), guanfacine (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.12-1.82), and methylphenidate (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.09-1.63). The summarized evidence suggests that headache is common in children with ADHD, both as part of the clinical presentation as such and as a side effect of some standard medications. Monitoring and clinical management strategies of headache in ADHD, in general, and during pharmacological treatment are recommended.
Topics: Child; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Comorbidity; Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34635194
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291721004141 -
Psychopharmacology Bulletin Feb 2023Literature on ADHD has taken long strides recently as heaps of new data are pouring in through countless papers. Here, authors try to outline changing paradigms in ADHD... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Literature on ADHD has taken long strides recently as heaps of new data are pouring in through countless papers. Here, authors try to outline changing paradigms in ADHD practice. DSM-5 changes regarding the typology and diagnostic criteria are highlighted. Overview of co-morbidities, associations, developmental trajectories, and syndromic continuity across lifespan is outlined. Recent insights into aetiology and diagnostic tools are briefly discussed. New medications in the pipeline are also described.
METHODS
EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews were searched for all relevant updates in ADHD literature as of June, 2022.
RESULTS
DSM-5 brought about changes to the diagnostic criteria of ADHD. These included replacing types with presentations, pushing age to 12, and, incorporating adult diagnostic criteria. In the same vein, DSM-5 allows now for diagnosing concurrent ADHD and ASD. Associations of ADHD to allergy, obesity, sleep disorders, and, epilepsy have been demonstrated in recent literature. Neurocircuity underlying ADHD has been extended beyond frontal-striatal to include CTC as well as DMN accounting for ADHD heterogeneity. NEBA was FDA-approved to differentiate ADHD from hyperkinetic ID. Atypical antipsychotics use to address behavioural facets in ADHD is on the rise with no solid evidence-base. α-2 agonists are FDA-approved as monotherapy or adjunctive to stimulants. Pharmacogenetic testing is readily available for ADHD. Different formulations of stimulants abound on the market widening clinicians' repertoire. Stimulant-related exacerbation of anxiety and tics were challenged in recent studies. Drugs for ADHD in the pipeline include-dasotraline, armodafinil, tipepidine, edivoxetine, metadoxine, and memantine.
CONCLUSIONS
Literature on ADHD keeps expanding towards advancing our understanding of the complex and heterogeneous intricacies of this commonplace neurodevelopmental disorder and hence informing better decisions on how best to manage its diverse cognitive, behavioural, social and medical facets.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Antipsychotic Agents; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders
PubMed: 36873919
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Feb 2024Lewy body dementia (LBD) is situated at the convergence of neurodegenerative disorders, posing an intricate and diverse clinical dilemma. The accumulation of abnormal... (Review)
Review
Lewy body dementia (LBD) is situated at the convergence of neurodegenerative disorders, posing an intricate and diverse clinical dilemma. The accumulation of abnormal protein in the brain, namely, the Lewy body causes disturbances in typical neural functioning, leading to a range of cognitive, motor, and mental symptoms that have a substantial influence on the overall well-being and quality of life of affected individuals. There is no definitive cure for the disease; however, several nonpharmacological and pharmacological modalities have been tried with questionable efficacies. The aim of this study is to figure out the role of different interventional strategies in the disease. Donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine, and galantamine were the commonly used drugs for LBD. Together with that, levodopa, antipsychotics, armodafinil, piracetam, and traditional medications like yokukansan were also used, when indicated. Talking about nonpharmacological measures, exercise, physical therapy, multicomponent therapy, occupational therapy, psychobehavioral modification, transcranial stimulation, and deep brain stimulation have been used with variable efficacies. Talking about recent advances in the treatment of LBD, various disease-modifying therapies like ambroxol, neflamapimod, irsenontrine, nilotinib, bosutinib, vodobatinib, clenbuterol, terazosin, elayta, fosgonimeton, and anle138b are emerging out. However, there drugs are still in the different phases of clinical trials and are not commonly used in clinical practice. With the different pharmacological and nonpharmacological modalities we have for treatment of LBD, all of them offer symptomatic relief only. Being a degenerative disease, definite cure of the disease can only be possible with regenerative measures.
PubMed: 38333295
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001664